The end of budget flights (hopefully)

[Torquemada 1420]

Pressure mounting on air travel pollution

https://www.mmu.ac.uk/news-and-events/news/story/13317/

https://www.ft.com/content/296121c6-1af ... 389b6de33c

The icing on the cake would be if this resulted in the likes of Lyin Air and Sleazy Jet f**king off into oblivion.

[Sandstorm]

Pressure mounting on air travel pollution

https://www.mmu.ac.uk/news-and-events/news/story/13317/

https://www.ft.com/content/296121c6-1af ... 389b6de33c

The icing on the cake would be if this resulted in the likes of Lyin Air and Sleazy Jet f**king off into oblivion.

Price goes up per passenger on all airlines as they carbon trade with cleaner industries.

[Line6 HXFX]

Yeah, the working classes should just work and work for peanuts, and then just hang around Ebbw Vale town centre on their weeks off , and look at the dragon.
It is really shiney this time of year..

Look torq.. the working classes are not going to go all nihilistic, sophisti'cunted and decide to guzzle absinthe to death, while having an existential crisis.

There are going to live.. and have all the fun whether you like it or not.

[Paddington Bear]

Ending cheap flights I think will be the mother of all climate battles.

[Sandstorm]

Ending cheap flights I think will be the mother of all climate battles.

Improve train links to all UK airports and you'd save more than the 3% that planes emit annually.

[Torquemada 1420]

Yeah, the working classes should just work and work for peanuts, and then just hang around Ebbw Vale town centre on their weeks off , and look at the dragon.
It is really shiney this time of year..

Look torq.. the working classes are not going to go all nihilistic, sophisti'cunted and decide to guzzle absinthe to death, while having an existential crisis.

There are going to live.. and have all the fun whether you like it or not.

Whilst your portrayal is comic extreme, want to explain to me why airline travel should differ from owing a car, a house or going on a cruise ship? The airline industry through various methods of collusion, abuse and other nefarious means has long been providing a massively subsidised offering at a cost to the planet.

To flip your analogy on its head, why should street kids in Kingston have an increased risk of lung cancer because Ebbw Valees want a cheap, on the p*ss excursion to Tenerife?

[Torquemada 1420]

Ending cheap flights I think will be the mother of all climate battles.

Agree. Read the articles. No way is any of them going down without a massive fight. The lobbying power they wield is immense.

[Ymx]

Ending cheap flights I think will be the mother of all climate battles.

Improve train links to all UK airports and you'd save more than the 3% that planes emit annually.

You catch planes to UK airports?

No, but seriously, wouldn’t making airports easier to get to and more convenient only increase people’s appetite to fly?

[Raggs]

Ending cheap flights I think will be the mother of all climate battles.

Improve train links to all UK airports and you'd save more than the 3% that planes emit annually.

You catch planes to UK airports?

No, but seriously, wouldn’t making airports easier to get to and more convenient only increase people’s appetite to fly?

You really think people decide not to fly on holiday based on having to spend an extra hour of travel time to get to the airport etc?

[Paddington Bear]

Ending cheap flights I think will be the mother of all climate battles.

Improve train links to all UK airports and you'd save more than the 3% that planes emit annually.

We are the only country in the world where we object to building railway lines on environmental grounds though...

[Ymx]

Improve train links to all UK airports and you'd save more than the 3% that planes emit annually.

You catch planes to UK airports?

No, but seriously, wouldn’t making airports easier to get to and more convenient only increase people’s appetite to fly?

You really think people decide not to fly on holiday based on having to spend an extra hour of travel time to get to the airport etc?

Less impulse and frequency of weekend o/seas breaks. Yes absolutely I do.

[Hal Jordan]

Ending cheap flights I think will be the mother of all climate battles.

Improve train links to all UK airports and you'd save more than the 3% that planes emit annually.

We are the only country in the world where we object to building railway lines on environmental grounds though...

If we hadn't butchered the railways in the 50s and 60s we might have a public transport system worthy of the name.

And no Oh, Dr Beeching, either.

[Lemoentjie]

It would be better if frequent flyers paid more. This will just hurt the working classes.

Add 20% to the price of any ticket, for each ticket you buy in a year. For your 10th flight you are paying 6x over the actual price. For the 20th flight you are paying almost 40x as much. Much fairer.

[Paddington Bear]

Improve train links to all UK airports and you'd save more than the 3% that planes emit annually.

We are the only country in the world where we object to building railway lines on environmental grounds though...

If we hadn't butchered the railways in the 50s and 60s we might have a public transport system worthy of the name.

And no Oh, Dr Beeching, either.

There's a fascinating 'what if' with British planning in the 50s and 60s, given they bet so heavily on the car and it's turned out to be a really poor one. Could have kept the trams and not built motorways through inner cities, and had a functional rural rail network (not that every cut was a bad one).

[Paddington Bear]

It would be better if frequent flyers paid more. This will just hurt the working classes.

Add 20% to the price of any ticket, for each ticket you buy in a year. For your 10th flight you are paying 6x over the actual price. For the 20th flight you are paying almost 40x as much. Much fairer.

Frequent flyers are the wrong target. Pre crisis I would fly most weeks and given work were paying I would make damn sure I got the BA flight for my points. Very few frequent flyers are paying from their own pocket.

[Raggs]

It would be better if frequent flyers paid more. This will just hurt the working classes.

Add 20% to the price of any ticket, for each ticket you buy in a year. For your 10th flight you are paying 6x over the actual price. For the 20th flight you are paying almost 40x as much. Much fairer.

Frequent flyers are the wrong target. Pre crisis I would fly most weeks and given work were paying I would make damn sure I got the BA flight for my points. Very few frequent flyers are paying from their own pocket.

Surely that's the perfect target? Make businesses pay?

[Paddington Bear]

It would be better if frequent flyers paid more. This will just hurt the working classes.

Add 20% to the price of any ticket, for each ticket you buy in a year. For your 10th flight you are paying 6x over the actual price. For the 20th flight you are paying almost 40x as much. Much fairer.

Frequent flyers are the wrong target. Pre crisis I would fly most weeks and given work were paying I would make damn sure I got the BA flight for my points. Very few frequent flyers are paying from their own pocket.

Surely that's the perfect target? Make businesses pay?

Depends if your objective is to reduce flights or raise revenue

[Raggs]

Frequent flyers are the wrong target. Pre crisis I would fly most weeks and given work were paying I would make damn sure I got the BA flight for my points. Very few frequent flyers are paying from their own pocket.

Surely that's the perfect target? Make businesses pay?

Depends if your objective is to reduce flights or raise revenue

Economically, the 2nd is probably preferable, as you can then invest that money in yet another business to perform carbon capture. Spread the money around is always good for the economy.

[Torquemada 1420]

We are the only country in the world where we object to building railway lines on environmental grounds though...

That's a total misrepresentation. What people are objecting to (HS2) is a massively over budget, vanity project with no meaningful benefit for the cost spent. If you take in context of opportunity cost, it will be the biggest waste of money ever to eclipse even the NHS database.

Ironically, I was walking talking to the lead civil engineer for section C of the East-West rail project last Sunday. Ironic why? Because the line was axed as part of Beeching's sh*tfest. Britain has (or had) the highest density of rail infrastructure in the world. Probably still has even after all the closures............ which, in some cases, now has £bns being spent to reopen.

I reckon 99% of environmentalists would be more than happy to open up old rail lines and ban all this heavy goods stuff that should not be going by road except from nearest rail point of delivery to end point.

[Torquemada 1420]

It would be better if frequent flyers paid more. This will just hurt the working classes.

Add 20% to the price of any ticket, for each ticket you buy in a year. For your 10th flight you are paying 6x over the actual price. For the 20th flight you are paying almost 40x as much. Much fairer.

Frequent flyers are the wrong target. Pre crisis I would fly most weeks and given work were paying I would make damn sure I got the BA flight for my points. Very few frequent flyers are paying from their own pocket.

There is no wrong target. All fliers should be targeted "fairly" i.e. pay per mile of flying. Fatties should pay more for burning more fuel though.

[Niegs]

At the other end of the line, what about the locations that rely heavily on tourism?

[Torquemada 1420]

At the other end of the line, what about the locations that rely heavily on tourism?

Tough. Again, why should the rest of the planet subsidise their position? Anyway, this moves through cycles as budgets, tastes and trends alter regardless of cheap flight availability.

[sturginho]

Make it even harder for me to see my family, thanks

[Niegs]

At the other end of the line, what about the locations that rely heavily on tourism?

Tough. Again, why should the rest of the planet subsidise their position? Anyway, this moves through cycles as budgets, tastes and trends alter regardless of cheap flight availability.

I've got no stake in either side of the argument of overseas flights, just thinking about the bigger picture. I do wonder "What's next?" for humanity... either a true shift toward protecting from and even reversing environmental damage (being a bit of a cynic, I think we're too selfish to truly do anything worthwhile about it) or what will we be forced to do once the resources run out or become too expensive for us to be as carbon wasteful as we are?

People don't give a shit because things are still reasonably affordable and floodwaters/firestorms aren't affecting the majority of people, other things might be killing them more slowly, but whatevs. I get the feeling that those who'd enact massive change (Greens) never get voted in and even when the more centrists make moves toward doing good, the public lashes back at higher taxes, policies that infringe upon their 'rights', etc. (as has happened here in Canada... we have a centre-left federal gov't that talks the game, but most provinces have elected conservative gov'ts that push back hard because 'taxes' and 'jobs' and 'my big corp/industry backers tell me to').

[Paddington Bear]

We are the only country in the world where we object to building railway lines on environmental grounds though...

That's a total misrepresentation. What people are objecting to (HS2) is a massively over budget, vanity project with no meaningful benefit for the cost spent. If you take in context of opportunity cost, it will be the biggest waste of money ever to eclipse even the NHS database.

Ironically, I was walking talking to the lead civil engineer for section C of the East-West rail project last Sunday. Ironic why? Because the line was axed as part of Beeching's sh*tfest. Britain has (or had) the highest density of rail infrastructure in the world. Probably still has even after all the closures............ which, in some cases, now has £bns being spent to reopen.

I reckon 99% of environmentalists would be more than happy to open up old rail lines and ban all this heavy goods stuff that should not be going by road except from nearest rail point of delivery to end point.

This isn't true about HS2. It has been massively miss sold, I fully accept, but there are significant benefits to the project which will be even greater if we fully extend it. It isn't at all about getting to Brum 15 minutes faster, finally HS2 Ltd have woken up to actually arguing the case for it.

Saying that, you are spot on with East-West rail, astonishing it was ever cancelled in the first place. Phase 1 (Oxford - Chiltern Main Line link) was a demonstration of just how powerful rail re-openings can be.

[JM2K6]

What does the data say? Which types of flights are the most significant contributors to climate change?

[Lemoentjie]

It would be better if frequent flyers paid more. This will just hurt the working classes.

Add 20% to the price of any ticket, for each ticket you buy in a year. For your 10th flight you are paying 6x over the actual price. For the 20th flight you are paying almost 40x as much. Much fairer.

Frequent flyers are the wrong target. Pre crisis I would fly most weeks and given work were paying I would make damn sure I got the BA flight for my points. Very few frequent flyers are paying from their own pocket.

Even better. The money raised can be invested into green tech.

[Sandstorm]

Does this mean we don’t need a third runway at Heathrow after all?

[Caley_Red]

Budget flights allow families and individuals on low incomes to visit places they wouldn't otherwise be able to visit, quite snobby wishing this away when these people are likely to have far lower per capita emissions than the population as a whole.

You will not get democratic consent for green reforms if they involve significantly regressing the quality of life enjoyed by people currently.

[Butterfingers]

Hooray, John from Essex can't go to Benidorm anymore. Climate change has been defeated!

[Sandstorm]

Budget flights allow families and individuals on low incomes to visit places they wouldn't otherwise be able to visit, quite snobby wishing this away when these people are likely to have far lower per capita emissions than the population as a whole.

You will not get democratic consent for green reforms if they involve significantly regressing the quality of life enjoyed by people currently.

The quality of life on a two week holiday in Spain is less important than their quality of life at home the other 50 weeks. If loss of the ability to fly somewhere keeps the planet cool enough, then all of us should make that sacrifice.

Fuck, I’ve gone all Greta at last.

[Butterfingers]

At the other end of the line, what about the locations that rely heavily on tourism?

Tough. Again, why should the rest of the planet subsidise their position? Anyway, this moves through cycles as budgets, tastes and trends alter regardless of cheap flight availability.

On the one hand you're advocating living like peasants from the middle ages because burning CO2 is harming people in the developing world. And on the other hand your response to putting said people out of a job is "tough".

[Butterfingers]

Budget flights allow families and individuals on low incomes to visit places they wouldn't otherwise be able to visit, quite snobby wishing this away when these people are likely to have far lower per capita emissions than the population as a whole.

You will not get democratic consent for green reforms if they involve significantly regressing the quality of life enjoyed by people currently.

The quality of life on a two week holiday in Spain is less important than their quality of life at home the other 50 weeks. If loss of the ability to fly somewhere keeps the planet cool enough, then all of us should make that sacrifice.

Fuck, I’ve gone all Greta at last.

2 weeks abroad to look forward to makes the other 50 weeks of every day life more tolerable.

[Sandstorm]

At the other end of the line, what about the locations that rely heavily on tourism?

Tough. Again, why should the rest of the planet subsidise their position? Anyway, this moves through cycles as budgets, tastes and trends alter regardless of cheap flight availability.

On the one hand you're advocating living like peasants from the middle ages because burning CO2 is harming people in the developing world. And on the other hand your response to putting said people out of a job is "tough".

Tracy from Enfield can direct wind turbines instead of showing you where the emergency exit is.

[Torquemada 1420]

Does this mean we don’t need a third runway at Heathrow after all?

That will be off the table for a long time methinks.

[Torquemada 1420]

At the other end of the line, what about the locations that rely heavily on tourism?

Tough. Again, why should the rest of the planet subsidise their position? Anyway, this moves through cycles as budgets, tastes and trends alter regardless of cheap flight availability.

On the one hand you're advocating living like peasants from the middle ages because burning CO2 is harming people in the developing world. And on the other hand your response to putting said people out of a job is "tough".

You're all over the place.
1) How is potentially not being able to afford to fly equivalent to a return to living in squalor and starvation?
2) Yeah. It's tough. Shifting patterns of demand and the capacity to address them are always there. Presumably you advocate a return to coal mining?

[Torquemada 1420]

Budget flights allow families and individuals on low incomes to visit places they wouldn't otherwise be able to visit, quite snobby wishing this away when these people are likely to have far lower per capita emissions than the population as a whole.

You will not get democratic consent for green reforms if they involve significantly regressing the quality of life enjoyed by people currently.

Oh. They do, do they? That include the estimated 2bn living below the poverty line worldwide? The same 2bn most likely to be affected adversely by pollution already.

It has nothing to do with snobbery and everything to do with the practicalities of capitalism and its impacts upon the environment. Flying is a luxury good and should be priced accordingly to reflect its contribution to global (clue there: the world is bigger than the council house estate you drive past on the way to work) environmental damage.

[Torquemada 1420]

What does the data say? Which types of flights are the most significant contributors to climate change?

See the links. It is massively complicated. At present, I suspect the fairest thing would be to add an environmental tax to the fuel. That way
- long haul pays more than short haul
- 1/2 empty planes pay proportionately higher than full ones

There are some models which suggest that would not detrimentally impact "budget" at all: since they tend to be short haul and sardines. It would simply make the pricing more sensible and
not beyond the majority of existing users' pockets.

[Butterfingers]

Tough. Again, why should the rest of the planet subsidise their position? Anyway, this moves through cycles as budgets, tastes and trends alter regardless of cheap flight availability.

On the one hand you're advocating living like peasants from the middle ages because burning CO2 is harming people in the developing world. And on the other hand your response to putting said people out of a job is "tough".

You're all over the place.
1) How is potentially not being able to afford to fly equivalent to a return to living in squalor and starvation?
2) Yeah. It's tough. Shifting patterns of demand and the capacity to address them are always there. Presumably you advocate a return to coal mining?

Because restricting travel to just the wealthy is taking us backwards. Why should poor people have to sit it out while businesses fly people across the Atlantic 10 times a year to sit in a meeting they could do on the phone? Or millionaires fly privately while tweeting about climate change. If you want to go after aviation pollution that's where you should be starting.

Tourism is an important industry, 1 in 10 jobs world wide rely on it. You can't just sweep the rug out from underneath it in the vague hope of preventing climate change. There are better, more practical ways of reducing global Co2 emissions.

[Torquemada 1420]

Because restricting travel to just the wealthy is taking us backwards. Why should poor people have to sit it out while businesses fly people across the Atlantic 10 times a year to sit in a meeting they could do on the phone? Or millionaires fly privately while tweeting about climate change. If you want to go after aviation pollution that's where you should be starting.

Tourism is an important industry, 1 in 10 jobs world wide rely on it. You can't just sweep the rug out from underneath it in the vague hope of preventing climate change. There are better, more practical ways of reducing global Co2 emissions.

JHC

1) There are other modes of travel than aircraft. I assume you'll be calling for budget flights to Mars too?
2) BECAUSE flying, like owning a car, is not a right. You are banging the morality drum which is fine but then I suggest you vote Communist in an attempt to overthrow capitalism.
3) "millionaires fly privately while tweeting about climate change". Wealthy in hypocrisy shocker. I hope you aren't a royalist. Again, you miss the point. IF the wealthy can afford to "net good" whilst flying, then I'm okay with that i.e. they can afford to compensate more for the damage they cause then the damage they do. Anyway, in terms of air travel pollution, the super rich are going to be the pimple on the elephant's bum.
4) "while businesses fly people across the Atlantic 10 times a year to sit in a meeting they could do on the phone". Errr..... if you read what I wrote, one presumes that businesses will quickly work out that this is a poor use of funds and hence damaging profitability and will desist.